Lifelong Education Administration and Policy

Faculty

A Professional Alternative to Curriculum Alignment

"From the perspective of experience and research in the curriculum field, then, curriculum alignment nearly represents an educational debacle. In the case of curriculum alignment, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot with a silver bullet. Yet the appeal of curriculum alignment outside the curriculum field is powerful. Many Americans believe, however mistakenly, that test scores are absolute indicators of student learning, reflecting what historian Michael Kammen calls an American 'propensity for precise calculation'. Raising test scores constitutes an expedient way for politicians and policy makers to appear to be doing something about the 'problem' of education. Add to these conditions English's appeal to equity and accountability and the attraction of curriculum alignment can become irresistible. Amidst the resulting pressure from politicians, policy makers, and the public, the administrative convenience of teaching to the test, of backloading the curriculum, may appear as the only acceptable alternative. In the face of such pressures, what are thoughtful educators to do? Realistically, besides capitulation, what are our options?

One form of response would be to practice 'professional disobedience', to coin a term. This concept borrows from Thoreau's idea of civil disobedience and is roughly analogous to a physician refusing to be a party to medical malpractice. Professional disobedience is a matter of simply refraining from a practice that lacks a sound basis in theory and research of the professional field. Since such a response involves high levels of personal risk for educators working in the public sector, a more professional response is in order.

Recognizing that the main attraction of curriculum alignment lies in its appeal to the exalted value most people assign to standardized tests, the best professional response to curriculum alignment is to establish and maintain a substantive evaluation program as a component part of the curriculum development process.

A program of this type would conceive of curriculum development as an ongoing problem-solving process that treats curriculum problems not as fodder for public vilification, but as opportunities for program improvement and professional growth. It would involve the continuous, systematic evaluation and reevaluation of the purposes, practices, and results of the local educational program. It would draw from a variety of sources of information about student learning, employing preassessments, formative and summative evaluations, and follow-up studies of students who have left the program. In fact, locally-developed, low-stakes tests have been found to exert a positive impact on student learning (Madaus & Kelleghan, 1992). The evaluation program would be closely related to the improvement of curriculum and instruction, recognizing that curriculum, instruction, and evaluation are component parts of a whole process. Local authorities would dedicate to the evaluation program adequate resources, including the necessary time, money, materials, and personnel. Teachers will enjoy a central role in the curriculum development process and in the evaluation program.

In 1935, John Dewey exhorted educational leaders to play an active role in educating the public about 'the needs and opportunities of the creative education of the young'(Dewey, 1935, p. 10). Perhaps in no area more than in curriculum evaluation is such a leadership role needed today.

As part of the evaluation program, educational leaders would foster an open, rational climate for discussion of test scores and all evaluation information. Public forums would facilitate dissemination of and deliberation about evaluation and improvement efforts. Standardized test data would be presented in a comprehensive and professional manner. Published test results would include not only mean scores, but also would specify the number of scores, the proportion of the student population the scores represent, the range of scores, and the margin of error of the instruments in use. Inappropriate uses of standardized test results, such as those identified in the ITBS Interpretive Guide, would be avoided. On a periodic basis, officials from testing companies would be invited to discuss valid and appropriate use of their instruments.

A program of this kind would provide more and better information about student learning and program effectiveness and improvement. In this context, standardized tests would assume their rightful place in educational evaluation--as useful but fallible tools. Possibly, such a context could mitigate the hysteria that surrounds test scores by providing the public with a balanced picture of the utility and the limitations of standardized tests. In this setting, curriculum alignment would be appropriately eclipsed by substantive curriculum development." The Reporter, (GaASCD), Fall-Winter 1997-98, pp. 12-13.